It is give under art 72 that the president can set a person free even if the judiciary has declared him convicted. Is this not unfair and should be unconstitutional. this article is violative of Ubi jus ibi remedium i.e where there is a right, there is a remedy. because technically even if a person committed a murder or even r*pe the president can set him free. Why our constitutional makers inserted this article?
This question is so stupid on so many levels. The remedy against crime is provided to the state to prosecute offences, you dont personally do that. That right can be exercised by only the state and therefore the executive head can exercise this in any manner including pardoning or withdrawing trial. this is the reason no-one can stop you from civil remedies and execution of awards.
but why does this provision exist in the 1st place. your argument doesn't give any satisfactory answer, just being technical ( i agree u can use this loophole). But this art. is clearing violating separation of power like the court has given judgement and even after this president can overrides it. Technically every punishment given by the court, the president can negate it. Why?
Last time I checked, the President ( and Governors ) can only do so on the advice of the PM ( or CM ), since these are not under discretionary powers, which is usually further regulated by legislative acts and specific actions may face appropriate judicial scrutiny ( see Bilkis Bano case ) Pardons like this exist for a reason - the justice system is meant to rehabilitative, a person who has been successfully rehabilitated serves no purpose wasting taxpayer money in jail, this provides necessary flexibility This also adds to the system of checks and balances Also since you mentioned ubi jus ubi remedium, take note that rights against crime are rights in rem not rights in personam, since the state and society are wronged parties, it makes states have exceptional powers of commuting, remitting, pardoning, etc.
this article is violative of Ubi jus ibi remedium i.e where there is a right, there is a remedy. because technically even if a person committed a murder or even r*pe the president can set him free. Why our constitutional makers inserted this article?
Pardons like this exist for a reason - the justice system is meant to rehabilitative, a person who has been successfully rehabilitated serves no purpose wasting taxpayer money in jail, this provides necessary flexibility
This also adds to the system of checks and balances
Also since you mentioned ubi jus ubi remedium, take note that rights against crime are rights in rem not rights in personam, since the state and society are wronged parties, it makes states have exceptional powers of commuting, remitting, pardoning, etc.